Legal Opinion

Serpico v. Urso

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided September 20, 1984No. 83-1566PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PRESIDING JUSTICE LINN

delivered the opinion of the court:

Prior to pleading guilty, defendant, who first appeared pro se in response to a summons and complaint charging him with the paternity of plaintiff’s child, was not fully informed of certain statutorily prescribed rights as required under section 5 of the Paternity Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 40, par. 1355). Alleging the trial court’s failure to comply with the statute, defendant petitioned to vacate his guilty plea. The court, denying the petition, found defendant to be the father of plaintiff’s child and, after a support hearing,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. KingIllinois Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Andrews v. FoxworthyIllinois Supreme Court · 1978
  3. The People v. GendronIllinois Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Village of Mundelein v. HartnettAppellate Court of Illinois · 1983
  5. Vale v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Stull v. Department of Children & Family ServicesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  2. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. v. Department of RevenueAppellate Court of Illinois · 2005
  3. Beneficial Development Corp. v. City of Highland ParkAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  4. Bunge Corp. v. LewisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1986
  5. Greater Rockford Energy & Technology Corp. v. Shell Oil Co.District Court, C.D. Illinois · 1991

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API